The CPLR directs that there shall be "full disclosure of all matter material
and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." (CPLR 3101 [a]) The
CPLR also creates three categories of protected materials: privileged matter,
(CPLR 3101 [b]); attorney's work product (CPLR 3101 [c]); and trial preparation
materials, which are subject to disclosure only on a showing of substantial need
and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent of the materials by
other means (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]) (Spectrum Systems Int'l Corp. v Chemical
Bank, 78 NY2d 371). Claimant has denominated his application as one for
material falling into the third category of protected material and Defendant
opposes the application.

Here, Claimant has put the cart before the horse by making the instant motion,
as his list of materials sought is nothing more than a laundry list of discovery
items. As pointed out by Defendant, Claimant has failed to avail himself of the
procedures (see CPLR 3102) customarily used to obtain
disclosure[1], including most notably a demand
(seeSullivan v Smith, 198 AD2d 749) .

Given the broad discretion afforded to the Court in supervising discovery
(NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 192 AD2d 1032), the Court will
not condone resort to motion practice as the first disclosure device nor will it
engage in a parsing of Claimant's demands to determine whether Claimant has
requested any material falling within the ambit of material prepared for
litigation. Claimant is well advised to become accustomed with the proper
procedures for conducting litigation as set forth in the CPLR.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion is DENIED without prejudice.

August 26, 2004Albany,
New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISEJudge of the Court of Claims

[1] To Defendant's credit, and in the spirit
of the CPLR, it has attempted to comply with many of Claimant's requests as if
they were made by proper demand (see King Affirmation ¶ 4).